Change In Expulsion Policy Approved On Monday

Starting in the 2011-2012 school year, Westford students will no longer be subject to automatic expulsion for certain actions following the decision of the Westford School Committee on Monday night.

By a 6-1 vote, with all Committee members except for outgoing chairman David Keele voting in the affirmative, Westford’s expulsion policy was significantly changed in situations where a student may be breaking the law or endangering the safety of other students.

Previously, any student found on school premises or at a school-sponsored or related event in possession of guns, knives or illegal controlled substances such as marijuana, cocaine or heroin would be automatically expelled, which was amended to allow the possibility of expulsion while also emphasizing the a variety of methods to communicate to students the consequences associated with possession of weapons and controlled substances.

The policy was also amended with the addition of a preamble to the policy citing student rights and expectations regarding safety in schools, a commitment to cooperation in disciplinary policies between staff, parents and students and additional forms of progressive disciplinary steps such as in-school suspensions and year-long exclusions from school activities in addition to the out-of-school suspension and expulsion policies already in place.

School Committee member Margaret Murray appeared to be the largest proponent of the policy change, citing several concerns ranging from a lack of information regarding statistics on exclusionary disciplines versus statistics on expulsions and a recent situation under the old policy where she believed the district may have been in danger of a lawsuit from one parent’s attorney.

Keele recalled the incident and strongly disagreed that the incident required a change in the policy, trusting in the existing policy as well as the district’s current legal staff.

“I had to diplomatically compose myself from just saying ‘that attorney is wrong’,” said Keele, who himself is an attorney in Chelmsford. “What he said was not legally sound, and we have to make a determination on whether we will rely on our own legal counsel, and if we’re not going to rely on our own legal counsel, we shouldn’t have it.”

The issue of whether the school district’s attorney, who played an advisory role in the new policy according to Murray, should further review the policy was one of the major points of discussion along with the topic of specific implementation recommendations versus the judgment of district principals and the Superintendent regarding specific disciplinary instances.

While there was some debate as to whether the topic should be delayed, ultimately the committee believed that a third public reading of the policy change was not necessary.